I get the history as to why we got to our current economic situations, but no one is arguing for a system that casts off current economic issues that are pushing humanity towards destruction. I’m not saying this can happen over night or even within our current life time, but it’s obvious that capitalism and even socialism has reached the end of their usefulness.
The idea that social structures have a “logical end” is pure hubris and have no basis on reality.
Not until we reach a post-scarcity society.
We’re already there. The only thing preventing it is tribalism and the world oligarchs. We have the knowledge and capabilities, just not the willingness.
Hohoho we are very far from post scarcity. Read any newspaper.
The title and question are different, what exactly are you asking? I don’t see currency as a concept ever going away.
Their usefulness to whom
Humans are not known for solving problems on time
Capitalism is fine, we just need to tweak regulations for it to better incentivize the result we (humanity) are looking for.
I wish I had your confidence that capitalism can be tweaked into a fair system.
I honestly think the logical end point to capitalism is self-destructive extreme wealth disparity.
No.
First we need a better system for resource allocation. Monetary systems are extremely inefficient, but they’re far better than the “trust me, bro” approach of many of the alternatives.
A global post-scarcity society could in theory take over, similar to how it works in Star Trek, but there are a lot of other hurdles that need to be overcome first.
As long as proper distribution of resources requires an effort, it will also need an incentive to do so. Currently this incentive is provided by allowing for a profit margin, and while this does also provide a mechanism for skimming off the top, at least said skimming can be somewhat controlled by a free market ensuring better circumstances for those willing to skim less.
I’m quite curious to know what you mean by ‘usefulness’ in this context?
No. The concept of money is millenia old and likely too useful to discard. What MIGHT change is how that money is implemented. Wouldn’t be the first time either.
It’s pretty hard to imagine a way for groups of people with varying goals and interests to operate without some form of value exchange. This can either be barter, or some form of currency. Our specific kind of extractive capitalism based on creating endless cycles of debt and credit can certainly be replaced with any number of alternatives, but the idea of money itself is just too basic and useful to humans, imo.
There’s actually no such thing as humanity without money; it’s as key to our collective cognition as language.
The Salish Tribes existed in the PacNW for over 13,000 years without money.
Weren’t they the ones that used shells as money?
Wampum was used by Eastern Costal tribes as a storytelling aid.
In the Salish Tribes, dentalium shell necklaces were used as a status symbol/indication of social rank. Some tribes used the necklaces as a type of currency, but I’ve only heard the “some tribes did this” part; never anything about which specific tribes used dentalium as currency.
Obviously, anything that holds perceived value can be traded.
Source: went to junior high in a school that taught two full years of Haudenosaunee (also called Iroquois) history.
Salish source: I’ve been a volunteer naturalist in the Puget Sound for eight years with an annual training requirement, with entire days allocated to history of the original Salish tribe for the area where we’re working.
If trade occurs, then by definition they have currency; there are no barter economies.
You are confidently incorrect on this. Currency == money. Money is, for we hoi polloi, a barely consentual conversion and exchange system for our labor, hypothetically allowing us to convert our labor into readily fungible exchange units. Money, at the Capital Class level, is debt, and therefore control, i.e. power. Money is just how they keep score.
There are plenty of
bartergifting and Communist (“from those of ability to those of need”) economies, just on scales that fly below the radar of most economists. Your sweeping assertion leads me to believe that you may simply be ignorant of those non-monetary exchanges. Would you be willing to add more context to your assertion?Edit: I misspoke; crashfrog raises a valid point, and I meant gift economies.
No ethnographic studies have shown that any present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, and anthropologists have found no evidence that money emerged from barter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barter
What would be an example of the barter economy you’re certain exists? How do they overcome the need for double coincidence?
I misspoke, and you raise a good point. I meant gift economies, and that error is on me. And those are pretty well-documented. I’ll stick to my firsthand experiences:
- Waianae, Oahu in Hawaii. The weekly take-what-you-need-bring-what-you-can food exchanges there are a huge stopgap for food insecurity and also spur community bonding
- Burning Man - TTITD, regionals, and much of the hippie festival circuit have a robust gifting culture
